On physical-chemical grounds, the mass gassings with hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed "gas chambers" of Auschwitz claimed by witnesses did not take place. […]

The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses during their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in any building of Auschwitz whatsoever, are inconsistent with documentary evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific law.

Needless to say that these conclusions, being diametrically opposed to the prevailing notions about what happened at Auschwitz, triggered quite some acerbic, if not vitriolic reactions. Instead of proving him wrong, though, most reactions either merely vilified Rudolf or enganged in his persecution and even criminal prosecution. While on trial in Germany for his research, he was forbidden under threat of more prosecutions to prove that his controversial findings are correct. He ultimately languished in a German prison for 44 months for his research results. (This, too, is described in the appendix of his book.)

Only one person – Richard J. Green – cared to address some of Rudolf's technical, chemical and toxicological arguments, although he, too, resorted to all kinds of insults and political insinuations against Rudolf.

Over the years, Germar Rudolf has responded with a number of papers to Richard J. Green's attacks, which the interested reader might find worth perusing:

Character assassins

Introduction

He who smears his opponents politically, cannot have scientific motivations
for so doing. In a lengthy
article intended to refute the scientifically orientated Rudolf
Report about the alleged Gas Chambers of Auschwitz, Dr. Richard J. Green
and Jamie McCarthy waste roughly a third of their text to attack me with
mere political insinuations. Originally I intended to refuse to lower myself
to their gutter-level argumentation, but after considering that staying
silent might be wrongly interpreted as a confession of "guilt,"
I decided to speak out.

But before doing so, let me first make one thing absolutely clear: The
opponents of Revisionism always claim that the real motivation behind Revisionists'
activities is not their search for the truth but some political motives
like strengthening the political right wing or resurrecting National Socialism
by whitewashing Hitler and the Third Reich. I am not in a position to refute
such a claim simply because I do not know the intentions of all Revisionists.
This is so not only because I do not know all Revisionists, but also because
I do not want to know their intentions. And this because any revelation
of any political motivation would be disappointing for me, as I love to
live with the illusion that those who are struggling with me have merely
idealistic and unselfish intentions. Because I fear that any knowledge about
a political intention of a Revisionist makes me judge his work not according
to its scientific content and value, as one should as a scientist, but somehow
be influenced by knowledge about the author's mindset and political views,
I prefer not to know. I just want to stick to facts and scientific arguments.
That might give the reader an idea about my own motives. If my work was
determined by a certain political viewpoint, wouldn't it be likely that
I would welcome seeing similar motivation in co-revisionists?

We should, on the other hand, never forget that science's duty is primarily
to find out the facts, even in historiography. A moral evaluation of these
facts, if one considers them to be necessary, has to follow afterwards.
Thus, a moral judgment must never influence our search for facts. That being
so, how can people insist that certain eras and personalities of history
have to be given a certain moral value, and that any facts or arguments
that are revealed or brought forward by a scientist, which could lead to
a reassessment of this very moral value, are unacceptable? Could there possibly
be a scientific motivation behind such a demand? The answer to that is clearly
no. Such a demand is always driven by political intentions. In plain English:
Those who blame the Revisionists for intending to whitewash Hitler, or as
having similar intentions, cannot prove their claims rigorously. But when
arguing that way, they do prove rigorously that their intention is to prevent
Hitler from being whitewashed, or in general that our moral evaluation of
his person and era is being changed. Hence, their way of arguing does not
reveal revisionist intentions, but their own. And neither motivation is
scientific: Neither to whitewash Hitler nor to "blacken" him.

Dr. Green and McCarthy are two opponents of Revisionism who, by arguing
in this way, reveal their own political biases, when referring to Revisionists
in general as:

"those who wish to whitewash the Nazi regime."

In assuming that Jamie McCarthy is responsible for the first -- political
-- part of the paper discussed here, I shall address him directly, whereas
I shall address Dr. Green when the second, chemical part is being dealt
with.

Inaccuracy

First let me correct some inaccuracies in the article discussed here,
caused by referring to articles which are factually erroneous.

"In 1993, 'to make a little extra money on the side,'[5]
Germar Rudolf wrote the 'Rudolf Report'"

McCarthy is referring here to a Z-Gram from April 18, 1999, written by
Dr. Ingrid Rimland. She wrote this without asking me and without having
any information about how my Report came into being. Fact is that I never
received a single penny for my report, nor did there exist an agreement
which would entitle me to receive any. All I got back were the expenses
I had for making some photo-copies. The bills for the analyses and for the
first journey to Auschwitz were paid by a third party, thus enabling me
to do this research. As a matter of fact, all the other expenses -- time
invested, photo-copies of literature made, preparation and realization of
experiments, travels to certain places all over Germany for research, a
second series of analyses, all this was paid by myself, sometimes supported
by third parties.

Dishonesty

Jamie McCarthy quotes Dr. Ingrid Rimland and David Irving proof that
Revisionists say chemistry is a science to prove or disprove the existence
of homicidal gas chambers rigorously. He than quotes paragraphs of the conclusions
of my report as published on the net which include chemical arguments, while
omitting those that include technical and architectural arguments. Later
he quotes the conclusions as I had written them in a
paper presented roughly a year ago in Adelaide. He then constructs a
contradiction between both conclusions by indicating that, in the latter
conclusion, the word chemistry does not even exist:

"What he calls his summary of his own report no longer even includes
mention of his work in chemistry, except to downplay it."

This is dishonest. In my response to Dr. Richard Green's first article
about my report, I addressed his demand for a rigorous proof for the chemical
question alone. McCarthy now makes the reader believe that in my report
I had claimed to having found such a rigorous proof leading me to the conclusions
quoted, which is not true. In fact, I refused to see my report used and
published in 1990/91 without having included a proper technical and architectural
part in it, knowing already then about the limited value of the chemical
argument. Hence, in 1991 to 1992 I contacted engineers and architects in
order to receive more information about the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz
rather than relying on chemical arguments only. In fact, the conclusions
made in my report include chemical questions only in one part, the other
dealing with technical and architectural facts. Those facts taken together
lead me to the conclusions as they can be found in my report, and that is
exactly what I wrote in my response to Dr. Green, without repeating the
entire wording of my original conclusions (which I did not amend, by the
way):

"We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together
with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the
homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken
place."

All my arguments before and after this sentence were about chemistry.
So how can one consider McCarthy to be honest when he picks out this sentence
and gloats over the fact that my work in chemistry is not even mentioned
therein?

Rhetoric

McCarthy insists that there cannot be a real debate between his kin and
Revisionists because there

"cannot be a real debate between those who seek to understand history
and those who seek to obfuscate it"

and

"that accurate information must be presented so that the gullible will
not be taken in by those who wish to whitewash the Nazi regime"

Obviously, for McCarthy it is clear right from the start where the truth
lies and that somebody is obfuscating something and who this is. Would he
be open-minded and scientifically independent, he should leave this question
open until the contest between revisionist and exterminationist arguments
has come to an end. The final judgment about who is obfuscating what and
where the truth lies, should definitely be made by independent scientists
in a century when emotions have cooled down, but certainly not by one who
is emotionally heavily engaged in this fight. All in all this is another
indicator for the biased approach of McCarthy and Dr. Green to this topic.

I do not know if they do this deliberately in order to obfuscate something
(note: that distinguishes me from them, who claim that they do know!), but
I do know that this is clearly showing unscientific prejudice.

The same goes for the second part of this sentence. Accurate information
must not be presented so that the gullible will not be taken in by those
who wish to whitewash the Nazi regime, but it must be presented so that
everybody, the gullible as well as the well-informed, knows the facts and
can judge for himself the moral value of what ever ideology and personality
in history and present. Here both authors say openly that the purpose of
historiography in their eyes is to prevent that the moral evaluation of
a certain ideology or personality of history is being altered. What more
evidence is required to prove their bias?

Again, McCarthy is labelling me a 'Holocaust denier'. But I can only
deny something that I know did happen or is real. Otherwise, all scientists
who oppose certain theses -- in historiography or elsewhere -- would have
to be called "deniers" of competing theses. That would really
be ridiculous. So, please, let us first find out in a convincing way what
really happened, and if that succeeds, then those of us still sticking to
a version of history they themselves have admitted to be wrong may
be called "deniers." Anything else is polemical.

McCarthy claims that I have partly accepted that Fred Leuchter once had
claimed qualifications he did not have, and McCarthy doesn't understand
why I insist he shouldn't refer to this because it is not a scientific argument.
McCarthy now says:

"The argument in question was not presented as a scientific argument"

But that is exactly what I rebuked: Why do Green and McCarthy always
fall back on non-scientific arguments? What ever reputation and qualifications
Leuchter might have had, that does not at all affect the validity or invalidity
of his arguments. Although I did say that the accusations against Leuchter
for his alleged unlawful claims for certain qualification were "not
completely true," i.e. that they could be partly true -- because at
this time I myself was not sure what had been going on in the late '80s
when the American Engineering Board sued Leuchter for allegedly unlawfully
using a title -- today I do know better. The fact is, that Leuchter never
unlawfully claimed to having had a qualification he did not have, so Green's
and McCarthy's insinuations are simply wrong and libellous. Leuchter himself
explained the case recently as follows (letter
from 4/5/99):

"The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly, although
it did privately, and forced both parties, i.e. The Commonwealth and Leuchter,
into a settlement as a trial would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter
entered into an agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the
things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or change
anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's dropping of the
complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual promise with the Commonwealth
that in return for the Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of
him he would not break the law by saying things or doing things he had
never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never admitted to any wrong
doing or ever did any wrong. He simply agreed to be a law abiding citizen
(which he had been all his life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years
he still has not broken the law."

So here is the central question: Why are McCarthy, Dr. Green and their
associates forever bringing forward false accusations against Leuchter in
order to malign him? Is it because they want to distract attention from
the scientific arguments?

Quoting Pen Names

McCarthy argues that every time I quote a work I have written using a
pen name without expressively stating that this is me, I do so in order
to use these authors' works "as authorities to bolster" my own
arguments. That is untrue.

If I revealed a pen name every time I quoted it, what would be the
use of pen names? If McCarthy agrees that using pen names is an acceptable
measure to avoid social persecution and political prosecution, why then
should it be dishonest not to reveal the pen name?

From time to time I indeed have indicated who is hiding behind certain
pen names. Once you start doing so, you would have to do it always. But
by doing so, I would have to expose others as well, who are hiding behind
pen names and who would then immediately be exposed to heavy criminal prosecution
in Europe. Does McCarthy want me to be responsible that people are being
sent to prison because I have to be always honest and tell everybody the
truth about every pen name? Would he have demanded this from dissident
in the former USSR? Why is he demanding it from dissidents in the present
People's Republic of Continental Europe?

Frequently I get chided for revealing my own pen names, simply because
people think I should not give my readers the impression that I want to
impress the public with the amount and importance of work that I am doing.
So I stopped it. I don't want to appear arrogant.

In all cases when I refer to my own works written under a pen name,
I never do it to say: "look, this expert has the same opinion as I
have", but rather to say "this fact or argument was proven and
published there."

Quoting works in science follows a certain formal procedure, as McCarthy
and Dr. Green should know. The background of it is to enable the reader
to find the quoted source. That means in our case that you refer to the
author's name as it is to be found in the libraries' database. Giving a
possible real name for a pen name that is not included in the library data
is not additional data that enables anybody to find the work quoted better
than without the real name given.

Trademark Pen Names

Yes, I used to use a pen name similar to one used by a German journalist
as part of his smear campaigns against those he hates. Anton Maegerle, alias
Gernot Moderi, is one of the most evil journalistic promoters of political
prosecution and censorship in Germany. He is one of those journalists who
incite the public to take all sorts of illegal measures against those who
are deemed to be "right wingers." To be clear: I am not attacking
him for his own political views. I am attacking him for promoting the deterioration
of human rights in Germany.

I wrote an article in
a name similar to his, in which I described the illegal censorship in Germany
and its effects on the German society, i.e. I did argue from the opposite
position as Maegerle alias Gernot Moderi is doing. I wanted to tease him,
the fighter against human rights, by linking him to a work in favor of human
rights. I read in McCarthy's work that I succeeded. Moderi had to explain
and defend himself, he had to make clear to his friends and allies that
he is still fighting against human rights. I love to see that my small revenge
succeeded. But the moral buck is always passed to those who fight against
human rights, i.e. for censorship and vilification. Because there is no
trademark protection for pen names, I cannot see why anybody could be offended
by this. Exposing Gernot Moderi morally is pure fun.

Phony Doctorates

The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with
the title "Die Zeit
lügt!," published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy
articles of a certain Till Bastian published in summer 1991 in the German
weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no. 40, Sept.
25, 1992, p. 90). This is the fairest article about the Holocaust controversy
that has appeared so far, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian
were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always
had the means to check both point of views. Nobody else has ever done that
before or since -- on either side of this discussion.

Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and
qualifications of the authors given (H. K. Westphal, Dipl.-Ingenieur, Dr.
W. Kretschmer, Jurist, Dr. Ch. Konrad, Historiker, Dr. R. Scholz, Chemiker
und Pharmakologe), nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in
this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was
certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was done,
as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually
not present. Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as
an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see
footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials
against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented
by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist
(me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian,
an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor
a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was
neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously
had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian
and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a
German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided
to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized
that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many.
That is the background.

Ad Hominem Arguments

What follows after the escapades about pen names, is a huge amount of
slandering, libelling and character assassination.

In my first reply to Green, I attacked him for wrongly claiming without
any proof that Remer is my hero, and that free speech would be lost if

"people like [sic] Rudolf and his hero Remer ever to come to power here."

Being unable to refute that he is wrong, he or McCarthy simply refer
to my links to individuals and organisations generally referred to as belonging
to the political right wing. Having done so, he writes:

"Rudolf's credentials as a non-dogmatic and objective seeker of truth
must be called into question."

These links to certain persons and organisations neither prove that
Remer is my hero nor that free speech would be lost if I ever came to power.

How can my relationship to certain individuals, my membership in certain
organisations, and articles of mine having been published in certain periodicals
call my scientific credentials into question? No doubt I have political
convictions, as everybody else has. But what is it that makes my convictions
a threat to my credentials? What do Green and McCarthy know about my convictions?
Tell me who you are dealing with and I tell you what your convictions and
thus your credentials are? Don't play with the political underdogs, because
that damages your credentials? Is that what Green and McCarthy are arguing?
What else is this but political insinuation, character assassination and
distraction from scientific questions? How about self-revelations by both
Dr. Green and McCarthy concerning persons with whom they are in contact,
and which organisations they joined?

Membership in Political Organisations

Now let me say a few words about my political activities in the 80s.
In 1983 I joined a Catholic
student fraternity which is politically independent, but according to
its political self-image close to Germany's biggest political Party, the
Christian Democratic Union, in whose youth organisation I have been a member
for a short while (this party is perhaps comparable to the Republicans in
the USA or the Tories in UK). My student fraternity was a member of Europe's
largest and renowned Association
of Academics.

In that fraternity I learned more about German history than I ever did
at school, and I got interested in my own family's history as well. At the
end of WWII, my father and his family were expelled from Eastern Germany
(Silesia), loosing all their property, but otherwise being mostly unaffected
by the Polish and Russian Holocaust directed against 15 Million East-Germans,
of which some 2-3 million did not survive. My mother and her family survived
the Allied bombing Holocaust of civilians in German cities, where some 600.000
to one million Germans were burned alive or gassed to death by the carbon
monoxide developed by the resulting fire-storms. My grandpa fortunately
survived several of the Allied extermination camps built in Europe and Asia
after the war to starve some 2,5 million Germans to death, most of them
young German men. So I consider myself to be the son of two families of
Holocaust survivors. Considering that the world up to today did not even
recognize this genocide against my own people -- not even in Germany is
this subject dealt with in a way that could be called satisfying -- I believed
it to be a moral imperative to make sure that the knowledge of my people
and of the entire world about these events should be improved. That was
the main reason for all my historical and political dedication in the eighties,
inter alia within the Schlesische
Jugend (Silesian Youth, youth organisation of the Germans expelled from
Silesia), the social-patriotic party Die Republikaner,
a party splintered off from the Christlich-Soziale
Union in 1983, which itself is a Bavarian subsection of the already
mentioned Christian Democratic Union, as
well as the short-term involvement in the editing of the Junge
Freiheit, in those years a tiny monthly newspaper sympathetic to Die Republikaner. The reader might judge for
themselves what possibly could be wrong with these organisation that could
lead to the destruction of my credentials.

If my commitment for a fight against forgetting, or ignorance of, the
genocide committed against the German people is an indication of bias which
calls into question my credentials as a non-dogmatic and objective seeker
of truth, as McCarthy and Dr. Green imply, then their commitment to fight
against forgetting, or ignorance of, the (alleged) genocide committed against
the Jewish people is an indication of bias which calls their credentials
as non-dogmatic and objective seekers of truth into question, too.

You can't have it either way.

And finally: All the articles of mine that were published in several
periodicals McCarthy doesn't like should be judged by their content
and not by the (alleged) political views other authors or the editors of
these journals might have. Because there is no way for me to get anything
I write published in those journals Green and McCarthy like -- their friends
and allies simply refuse to accept them -- I have no choice but to stick
to those journals which do accept my articles. And by the way: I am sure
that Dr. Green and McCarthy don't like the journal
I am editing, either. Does the fact that I publish my articles in my own
journal destroy my reputation as well? Does my reputation destroy my reputation?
The absurdity of this should make everybody see that the way McCarthy argues
here is unacceptable.

Personal Acquaintances

One of the least desirable features of most human beings is that they
quit any connection and relation to other fellow human beings -- be they
friends or just acquaintances -- and even deny ever having had any connection
or relations -- as soon as those fellow human beings are attacked by influential
or renowned people, media or organisations. There is a German saying which
hits the nail on the head:

That I love the dog so much,
you say, oh man, is a sin.
The dogs stays loyal in a storm,
the man not even in the wind.

It was extremely shocking for me to see how the judges during the trial
against me at the Stuttgart District Court in 1994/95 tried to prove my
allegedly evil political intention by linking me to people whose (alleged)
political views they thought can be exposed easily. Because they couldn't
prove that I had committed the thought crime they accused me of (having written
some comments to one version of my report), they went the indirect way:
By showing that apart from totally "normal" friends I additionally
have had friends and acquaintances who were having allegedly evil political
views, they concluded that I have similar views. That being "proved",
they concluded that I was morally inferior and thus capable of committing
the thought crime as the prosecutions claimed I had. Having "proved"
that, they concluded that I did commit the crime.

The message is clear: Never get in touch with people whose alleged political
views are considered to be evil by the German political judges, because
otherwise they could incarcerate you for that. They
did it in my case. Dr. Green and McCarthy use the same techniques to
"outlaw" me. There is no human behaviour which is more odious.

In order to fight against that sort of moral degeneration, I do announce
that I shall never distance myself from anyone I am somehow related to,
just because some people think they are bad company -- no matter what their
political views are. I am the only one who decides who is my friend and
who not, and that is being done according to my personal preferences, and
not according to Dr. Green's, McCarthy's or other inquisitors' preferences.
Furthermore, it is an outright lie to impute that it is possible to conclude
from somebody's political views about his friends' views.

The reader might remember the witch-hunt atmosphere in the USA shortly
after the war, when Senator Joseph McCarthy and his allies were seeking
to reveal all communist spies and their friends and supporters in order
to destroy the (alleged) "Bolshevik danger". In these days people
were persecuted and prosecuted just because they had friends which were
communists or socialists. Today, Jamie McCarthy and his associates are doing
exactly the same. That is nothing but a new form of McCarthyism.

Most of the people McCarthy is attacking me for having (had) relations
with simply gave me an opportunity to do things I wanted to do or gave me
shelter, aid and refuge in times when I was socially persecuted and legally
prosecuted. I would rather die than betray those friends, what ever political
convictions they might have, because it is not the political view that makes
the quality (including the credentials) of a human being, but its virtues:
wisdom, justice, bravery, moderation, selflessness, loyalty, honesty ...

Evasion

In my first reply I have attacked Green for being polemic when claiming
that Revisionists are "pseudoscientific," spreading false propaganda
in order to spread a bit of confusion to obfuscate the truth, that they
are lying. What is McCarthy's reply to it? First, he claims that I am pursuing
a rhetorical point. Then he insists that we have no right to have our point
taken seriously and that

"One has to earn such a right by demonstrating that one's point of view
is worthy of serious discussion."

Why does McCarthy fail to address the point? I know myself that nobody
has a right of being heard, and I did not claim this. I said that it is
unfair, polemical, libellous and unscientific to claim that an opponent
is lying, obfuscating the truth, spreading false propaganda etc. without
proving this.

Though there can always be a discussion between people having completely
different views about a certain topic, there cannot be a discussion if one
side is permanently slandering the other side and accusing it of having
bad intentions, without any proof.

Hate Speech and Censorship

In the next chapter, McCarthy again misses the point when addressing
my accusation that Dr. Green is spreading hate. McCarthy writes:

"And what exactly is 'real hate speech?' It seems it is hate
speech to label someone's speech 'hate speech.' If that is the
case, he engages in hate speech by his own definition. If labeling speech
'hate speech' is the equivalent of censorship, then Rudolf is
a censor."

This is pure nonsense, because first of all I would never support any
censorship, even if it is about "hate speech". Second, I did not
call Dr. Green's speech "hate speech" because he was labelling
other's speech as "hate speech," but because he is claiming that
we Revisionists are morally inferior as we allegedly are using all sorts
of evil techniques in order to rehabilitate what he in his first article
called the ideology of hate. Dr. Green:

"The people who write these reports are motivated by a desire to rehabilitate
Nazism, an ideology of hate."

Do they ever consider what they are doing when claiming this? National
Socialism and its exponents are today considered by nearly everybody to
be the most odious things in the world. McCarthy and Green cannot and did
not prove that I or other Revisionists do want to rehabilitate the reign
of hate. They are just claiming it, and by doing so, they expose us to the
utmost hate of the world. They are inciting the hate of the world against
us. That is what I call hate speech: A speech with unfounded and wrong claims
that results in the world hating something or somebody. If I would say:

"All Jews are lying and obfuscating the truth in order to establish the
world dominance of Zionism."

I assume both Dr. Green and McCarthy would agree with me that this is
hate speech. But if one writes:

"All Revisionists are lying and obfuscating the truth in order to establish
the world dominance of National Socialism."

then this is supposed to be appropriate. How come?

Melodrama

In my article about censorship in Germany I briefly described that both
heavy prison terms and psychiatric examinations of Revisionists are nowadays
quite common in German speaking Europe, and arson against Revisionist and
right wing publishers are getting more and more common as well, caused by
those people who incite the world against Revisionists and everything that
is supposed to be politically at the far right. McCarthy labels this as
"unwarranted melodrama." Easy talk. He is not a victim in this
case. [In the past when the subject of McCarthy's sexual preference was
mentioned in passing in a discussion of Holocaust claims, McCarthy howled
as if he was being egregiously persecuted. From this example, it would appear
that for him, the actual repression of Revisionists around the world
are of no consequence, while an imagined slight about his homosexuality
elicited an immediate and hysterical response. To be clear: I don't care about
McCarthy's sexual orientation. I have a homosexual acquaintance myself, and I
don't care about it as long as those people don't bother me with their inverted
sexual desires.]

Untenableness

In his first article, Dr. Green says that the assumption that there have
been no homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz is "untenable," because
one knows about their existence by eyewitness accounts. In criticizing Dr.
Green, I referred to the impossibility to refute "findings of the exact
sciences with eyewitness accounts" and showed that Dr. Green's allegation

"clearly shows that Green will never accept any proof of exact science
which refutes what he believes is true. It shows that it is impossible
to change Green's opinion about this matter, i.e. his opinion is not a
scientific one, but a dogmatic one."

McCarthy ignores this revelation of Dr. Green's preoccupation and then
artificially builds up a contradiction between my reference to "exact
sciences" and my confirmation that

"chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations
about the Holocaust "rigorously""

which he quickly converts to chemistry being an "inexact science."
This term is deceptive in itself. When reference is being made to the "exact
sciences", then one is generally talking about natural sciences as
well as technical sciences, in opposition to the social sciences like historiography,
sociology etc. This term does not imply that all conclusions being made
by the "exact sciences" are necessarily exact in a mathematical
sense.

Air Photos

Having no expertise in the realm of photo interpretation, as McCarthy
and/or Dr. Green state, is a bad excuse not to discuss my arguments. But
here we go ...

Because it is really boring to repeat chemical arguments again and again,
I shall restrict myself to just a brief listing of obvious shortcomings
in Dr. Green's critique of my work. More detailed remarks are going to be
found in the new version of my report due in 2000.

EVAPORATION AND CYANIDE TOXICITY

I cannot see a single reference in Dr. Green's refutation addressing
the only real data we have about the HCN-concentration and time required
to kill people, i.e. the executions in the USA.

Dr. Green has ignored the fact that the evaporation of HCN from the carrier
of Zyklon B is slowed down massively (besonders stark) in the case
of high relative humidity in the air as would have been the case in an assumed
homicidal gassing. This would have led to a higher amount of Zyklon B to
be applied in order to achieve a similar release of HCN in the same period
of time.

VENTILATION

It is not Carlo Mattogno who has misrepresented the figures of the performance
of the ventilation system built in into the morgue 1 of Krematorium II and
III in Birkenau, but Pressac who did so. He wrote about a performance of
8.000 m³/h by referring to a document that is not with a single word
talking about any performance. [1] In contrary to that,
Carlo Mattogno quoted the final invoices for the ventilation systems which
exactly give their performance: 4.800 m³/h. [2] Is it
possible that Dr. Green hasn't seen the documents he is talking about?

My original calculations of the performance of the ventilation system,
heavily attacked by Dr. Green, were basing on the very restricted data I
received from Pressac's first book (Auschwitz: Technique and Operation
of the Gas Chambers), and calculations basing on them. After having
access to better information due to the opening of the Moscow archives,
these statements are now obviously outdated. Because other information will
affect many parts of my report, I stopped updating it, as a major revision
of my report is now due.

When talking about "air exchanges," Dr. Green attacks me by
claiming that because I am presumably using this word in different contexts
with a different meaning, this reveals an attempt of "intentional deception"
on my behalf. I would like to ask Dr. Green to read the relevant passages
in the German original which would clarify that I did not use the same term
in different contexts but that the translation he is referring to, which
must have been prepared by an unskilled translator, is simply wrong.

PRUSSIAN BLUE IN
FIVE STEPS

Dr. Green contradicts my assertion that, contrary to the lime mortar
used in the Auschwitz delousing chambers, the cement mortar and concrete
found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers have a high pH value (alkaline
medium) for quite a long time, making the formation of Iron Blue or Prussian
Blue much more likely than in the delousing chambers, as a high pH value
is favourable for the accumulation of cyanides and thus for the later forming
of Prussian Blue. He writes:

"[In 1993] The IFRC [Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow], on the
other hand measured the pH [of mortar samples from the alleged gas chambers]
to be between 6 and 7 [i.e. neutral]."

In order to expose Dr. Green's way of arguing, let me say it in a parable:

By referring to a couple of Italian expert pizza baking instructions,
I showed that a pizza, when taken out of the oven, is hot or warm for quite
a while (one hour). Now, Dr. Green comes along claiming that I am wrong
because a Polish friend of him has just now measured the temperature of
a pizza which was baked a week ago, and which has been lying around somewhere
since. And the Poles found out that this pizza was indeed cold right now.

I refuse to take Dr. Green serious. That sort of argument is childish,
really.

Dr. Green criticizes my suggestions about the mechanism for the formation
of Iron or Prussian Blue in lengthy detail, but eventually admits:

"that Rudolf is correct or nearly correct regarding the formation of
blue staining in the delousing chambers."

At least we got this far. Dr. Green could have spared the reader nearly
a third of his "refutation," which is merely a confirmation. It
is just the alleged human gas chambers where he disagrees:

"it is exceedingly unlikely that the same process would have taken place
to any great extent in the gas chambers used for mass murder."

My position is just the opposite. In order not to bore anybody be repeating
myself again and again, I shall very briefly repeat all the arguments in
a table which are consistently ignored by Dr. Green, and refer the reader
to my original report, my first reply to Dr. Green's "refutation,"
and the coming issue of my report for more details. In the following table
I have listed the factors affecting the formation of Prussian Blue both
for an interior wall of the delousing chamber of building 5a in Birkenau
(left), and of the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Krematorium II in Birkenau
(right). The first data row gives the actual result of the analyses for
total cyanide of samples taken from these walls. The right column shows
approximate factors linking both premises' tendency to form Prussian Blue.
The resulting factor in fact indicates that similar amounts of Prussian
Blue should be expected in both locations. Dr Green gets to his differing
results mainly by

ignoring that concentrations of HCN similar to delousing procedures
would have been necessary to kill the alleged victims in the time as testified
by all "witnesses", basing mainly on the data we can get from
capital punishment in the USA;

ignoring that the tendency of the cool, wet and alkaline medium in
the walls of alleged gas chambers would roughly compensate the reduced
time the walls of these premises would have been exposed to HCN compared
to delousing procedures.

Cyanide Residues to be Expected

Inner Wall
of delousing chamber
"Bauwerk 5a" in Birkenau

Walls of alleged
homicidal gas chamber
in Krematorium II in Birkenau

Factor

analysis result: 3,000 mg/kg

analysis result: 0-7 mg/kg,
not reproducible

Properties which were similar in both facilities

1. time period of operation

3/4 year

11/2 year

2. frequency of operation

daily (280 times)

nearly daily (400 × 1.000 people)

3. applied concentration of HCN

10 g/m3

10 g/m3

4. time gap between completion and start of operation

a few days or weeks

a few weeks

Properties which were advantageous for the formation of Iron Blue in
the delousing chambers

average gassing time, leading to a saturation of the wall with HCN of

30% - 100%

5% - 20%

>1/20

Properties which were advantageous for the formation of Iron Blue in
the alleged homicidal gas chambers

1. Humidity of the walls

warm, dry wall

8-10 times higher than warm, dry walls

8

2. Sort of material

lime plaster

concrete and cement plaster

2

resulting factor:

>0.8

THE INSTITUTE FOR FORENSIC RESEARCH, CRACOW

In my critique of the counter-expertise presented by the Institute for
Forensic Research, Cracow, I accused these Poles of a scientific fraud.
The Poles claimed of not having understood how Prussian Blue could possibly
form in walls as a result of them being exposed to HCN gas. Hence, they
did assume that the Prussian Blue in the walls of the delousing chambers
must have a different origin, e.g. stemming from paint. Although they knew
about my well-founded suggestions for the mechanism involved when Prussian
Blue is being formed in walls as a result of gassings with HCN, and they
knew of my arguments refuting claims that the Prussian Blue could stem from
any sort of paint, they decided to ignore them. Hence, they chose a method
of analysis which excluded the detection of Prussian Blue compounds, and
which eventually ended in analyses results presumably proving a similar
cyanide content in both the delousing chambers and the alleged human gas
chambers, which allegedly proves the reality of the claims of mass gassing
of human beings in homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz.

Because I acknowledge that the formation of Prussian Blue in walls is
not necessarily a result of a gassing with HCN, Dr. Green argues that it
shouldn't be criticized that the Poles chose a method of analysis which
is unable to detect Prussian Blue compounds. Hence, Dr. Green supports the
behaviour of the Poles.

Now let me be straight: Dr. Green agrees that the Prussian Blue found
in delousing chambers is the result of gassings with HCN. Hence he disagrees
with the opinion of the Poles that the Prussian Blue has its origin for
different reasons. Henceforth he should refuse the approach of the Poles
to exclude Prussian Blue from the analysis, because this would most likely
exclude the major parts of the cyanide residues formed by gassing with HCN
in general (not just in case of delousing chambers). As a consequence he
should furthermore criticize the Poles as I did. Additionally and more generally,
he should say that the Polish scientists did neither try to understand what
they claimed not to have understood, nor did they discuss the attempts to
understand made by others, which were known to them. No matter which results
the Poles produced and what their scientific opinion might have been: their
behaviour is extremely unscientific, as the most important task of a scientist
is to try to understand what hasn't been understood so far, and to discuss
the attempts of other to make understandable. The Poles just did the opposite:
they decided to ignore and exclude what they didn't understand. Finally,
in their article as well as in a letter to me, the Poles themselves stated
that the purpose of their paper was to refute the "Holocaust Deniers"
and to prevent Hitler and National Socialism from being whitewashed, i.e.
their purpose was not to find out the truth! Thus, they used unscientific
methods in order to produce desired results for the purpose of achieving
certain political goals. Hence, they are scientific frauds.

Dr. Green supports them. He is attacking me for my accusations against
the Poles, but he is omitting all the reasons I gave for doing so. He is
then attacking me as follows:

"Anyone who questions the honesty of the deniers is accused of engaging
in political polemics rather than science, but the deniers feel free to
call any document a fraud and any researcher a liar if they do not like
what they hear."

The opposite is true: I did not call the Poles frauds because of the
arguments they have or because of their conclusions. That is the difference
between me and Dr. Green.

I did call the Poles frauds because of the evidently unscientific approach
they made and for the political bias they themselves admitted. This is not
a matter of content or opinion, but a matter of scientific principle. Scientist
who intentionally ignore arguments and who choose to ignore immensely important
things because they presumably haven't understood, and who are at once admitting
that the motivation for so doing is a political one, are frauds, no matter
if revisionist or exterminationist.

To crown this, Dr. Green continues:

"Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not responded to his
queries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf have, that
demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?"

Persecute, prosecute, and sentence people because they are having a
different opinion.

Thus, destroy the social existence and the reputation of people because
they are having different opinions.

Call people liars, obfuscators and haters because they have different
opinions (like Dr. Green and McCarthy are doing).

Then, when having succeeded, refuse to discuss with them, because now
they have no longer any credibility.

Consequently, Dr. Green's opinion is that there is no need to discuss
anything with people having a different opinion. He instead loves to show
solidarity with scientific frauds.

There is apparently no common base for any further communication.

Conclusion

In his conclusions, Dr. Richard J. Green and Jamie McCarthy call me a
"parrot of Faurisson and Ball" without even having addressed the
arguments brought forward by me about topics which are only related
to works done by Faurisson and Ball (alleged Zyklon-B introduction holes
and air photos). One unfounded libel more.

Whereas I do not know whether McCarthy and Dr. Green are lying or deliberately
obfuscating the truth, I do know they are claiming to know this about
me and Revisionists in general;

whereas I did never try to smear anybody for his (alleged) political
convictions, nor did I try to find out or discuss anybody's political conviction
and make it a major topic in this issue -- I only attack people for unscientifically
introducing political "arguments" in a scientific dispute in
the first place -- I do know that McCarthy and Dr. Green are permanently
trying to damage the "credentials" of their opponents by referring
to their (alleged) political convictions and those of their company, which
is extremely unscientific;

whereas I try to judge the formal scientific value of a work by its
proper scientific form, as it should be, and attack those who do not stick
to this form, e.g. by intentionally ignoring dissident opinions, by intentionally
excluding important questions, or by introducing political or personal
topics, McCarthy and Dr. Green permanently and repetitiously don't obey
the most important scientific rules and defend those who don't do this
either.

Time will show whose scientific arguments will prevail at the end. But
the moral judgment appears to be quite clear already.